Home •Blog
TTMS Blog
TTMS experts about the IT world, the latest technologies and the solutions we implement.
Sort by topics
AI in a White Coat – Is Artificial Intelligence in Pharma Facing Its GMP Exam?
1. Introduction – A New Era of AI Regulation in Pharma The new GMP regulations open another chapter in the history of pharmaceuticals, where artificial intelligence ceases to be a curiosity and becomes an integral part of critical processes. In 2025, the European Commission published a draft of Annex 22 to EudraLex Volume 4, introducing the world’s first provisions dedicated to AI in GMP. This document defines how technology must operate in an environment built on accountability and quality control. For the pharmaceutical industry, this means a revolution – every AI-driven decision can directly affect patient safety and must therefore be documented, explainable, and supervised. In other words, artificial intelligence must now pass its GMP exam in order to “put on a white coat” and enter the world of pharma. 2. Why Do We Need AI Regulation in Pharma? Pharma is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the world. The reason is obvious – every decision, every process, every device has a direct impact on patients’ health and lives. If a new element such as artificial intelligence is introduced into this system, it must be subject to the same rigorous principles as people, machines, and procedures. Until now, there has been a lack of coherent guidelines. Companies using AI had to adapt existing regulations regarding computerised systems (EU GMP Annex 11: Computerised Systems) or documentation (EU GMP Chapter 4: Documentation). The new Annex 22 to the EU GMP Guidelines brings order to this area and clearly defines how and when AI can be used in GMP processes. 3. AI as a New GMP Employee The draft regulation treats artificial intelligence as a fully-fledged member of the GMP team. Each model must have: job description (intended use) – a clear definition of its purpose, the type of data it processes, and its limitations, qualifications and training (validation and testing) – the model must undergo validation using independent test datasets, monitoring and audits – AI must be continuously supervised, and its performance regularly assessed, responsibility – in cases where decisions are made by a human supported by AI, the regulations require a clear definition of the operator’s accountability and competencies. In this way, artificial intelligence is not treated as just another “IT tool” but as an element of the manufacturing process, with obligations and subject to evaluation. 4. Deterministic vs. Generative Models One of the key distinctions in Annex 22 to the EU GMP Guidelines (Annex 22: AI and Machine Learning in the GMP Environment) is the classification of models into: deterministic models – always providing the same result for identical input data. These can be applied in critical GMP processes, dynamic and generative models – such as large language models (LLMs) or AI that learns in real time. These models are excluded from critical applications and may only be used in non-critical areas under strict human supervision. This means that although generative AI fascinates with its capabilities, its role in pharmaceuticals will remain limited – at least in the context of drug manufacturing and quality-critical processes. 5. The Transparency and Quality Exam One of the greatest challenges associated with artificial intelligence is the so-called “black box” problem. Algorithms often deliver accurate results but cannot explain how they reached them. Annex 22 draws a clear line here. AI models must: record which data and features influenced the outcome, present a confidence score, provide complete documentation of validation and testing. It is as if AI had to stand before an examination board and defend its answers. Without this, it will not be allowed to work with patients. 6. Periodic Assessment – AI on a Trial Contract The new regulations emphasize that allowing AI to operate is not a one-time decision. Models must be subject to continuous oversight. If input data, the production environment, or processes change, the model requires revalidation. This can be compared to a trial contract – even if AI proves effective, it remains subject to regular audits and evaluations, just like any GMP employee. 7. Practical Examples of AI Applications in GMP The new GMP regulations are not just theory – artificial intelligence is already supporting key areas of production and quality. For example, in quality control, AI analyzes microscopic images of tablets, detecting tiny defects faster than the human eye. In logistics, it predicts demand for active substances, minimizing the risk of shortages. In research and development, it supports the analysis of vast clinical datasets, highlighting correlations that traditional methods might miss. Each of these cases demonstrates that AI is becoming a practical GMP tool – provided it operates within clearly defined rules. 8. International AI Regulations – How Does Europe Compare Globally? The draft of Annex 22 positions the European Union as a pioneer, but it is not the only regulatory initiative. The U.S. FDA publishes guidelines on AI in medical processes, focusing on safety and efficacy. Meanwhile, in Asia – particularly in Japan and Singapore – legal frameworks are emerging that allow testing and controlled implementation of AI. The difference is that the EU is the first to create a consistent, mandatory GMP document that will serve as a global reference point. 9. Employee Competencies – AI Knowledge as a Key Element The new GMP regulations are not only about technology but also about people. Pharmaceutical employees must acquire new competencies – from understanding the basics of how AI models function to evaluating results and overseeing systems. This is known as AI literacy – the ability to consciously collaborate with intelligent tools. Organizations that invest in developing their teams’ skills will gain an advantage, as effective AI oversight will be required both by regulators and internal quality procedures. 10. Ethics and Risks – What Must Not Be Forgotten Beyond technical requirements, ethical aspects are equally important. AI can unintentionally introduce biases inherited from training data, which in pharma could lead to flawed conclusions. There is also the risk of over-reliance on technology without proper human oversight. This is why the new GMP regulations emphasize transparency, supervision, and accountability – ensuring that AI serves as a support rather than a threat to quality and safety. 10.1 What Does AI Regulation Mean for the Pharmaceutical Industry? For pharmaceutical companies, Annex 22 is both a challenge and an opportunity: Challenge: it requires the creation of new validation, documentation, and control procedures. Opportunity: clearly defined rules provide greater certainty in AI investments and can accelerate the implementation of innovative solutions. Europe is positioning itself as a pioneer, creating a standard that will likely become a model for other regions worldwide. 11. How TTMS Can Help You Leverage AI in Pharma At TTMS, we fully understand how difficult it is to combine innovative AI technologies with strict pharmaceutical regulations. Our team of experts supports companies in: analysing and assessing the compliance of existing AI models with GMP requirements, creating validation and documentation processes aligned with the new regulations, implementing IT solutions that enhance efficiency without compromising patient trust, preparing organizations for full entry into the GMP 4.0 era. Ready to take the next step? Get in touch with us and discover how we can accelerate your path toward safe and innovative pharmaceuticals. What is Annex 22 to the GMP Guidelines? Annex 22 is a new regulatory document prepared by the European Commission that defines the rules for applying artificial intelligence in pharmaceutical processes. It is part of EudraLex Volume 4 and complements existing chapters on documentation (Chapter 4) and computerised systems (Annex 11). It is the world’s first regulatory guide dedicated specifically to AI in GMP. Why were AI regulations introduced? Because AI increasingly influences critical processes that can directly affect the quality of medicines and patient safety. The regulations aim to ensure that its use is transparent, controlled, and aligned with the quality standards that govern the pharmaceutical sector. Are all AI models allowed in GMP? No. Only deterministic models are permitted in critical processes. Dynamic and generative models may only be used in non-critical areas, and always under strict human supervision. What are the key requirements for AI? Every AI model must have a clearly defined intended use, undergo a validation process, make use of independent test data, and be explainable and monitored in real time. The regulations treat AI as a GMP employee – it must hold qualifications, undergo audits, and be subject to evaluation. How can companies prepare for the implementation of Annex 22? The best step is to conduct an internal audit, assess current AI models, and evaluate their compliance with the upcoming regulations. Companies should also establish validation and documentation procedures to be ready for the new requirements. Support from technology partners such as TTMS can greatly simplify this process and accelerate adaptation.
Read
A $20,000 Drone vs. a $2 Million Missile – Should We Really “Open Up” the Defense Market?
A $20,000 Drone vs. a $2 Million Missile – Should We Really “Open Up” the Defense Market? The recent incident of Russian drones violating Polish airspace has sparked a heated debate. A cheap flying provocation versus an expensive defensive missile – the contrast is striking. Experts point out that a styrofoam drone can cost as little as $10-20,000, while the AIM-120 AMRAAM missile used to shoot it down may cost $2-2.5 million. Few comparisons illustrate better the dilemma of “firing gold at plastic”. No wonder voices have emerged calling to “open the defense market” and let more companies in – supposedly to lower costs and accelerate cheaper defense technologies. Sounds tempting? At first glance, maybe. But defense is not a playground you can just walk into. Why is the idea of throwing the doors open to new players deeply problematic? Here are the key reasons. 1. National security is not an experiment The first and most important reason is national security. Military systems handle critical data and infrastructure that determine lives and sovereignty. A leak, sabotage, or hidden vulnerability could have catastrophic consequences – which is why access to defense projects is tightly regulated. Polish law requires every company producing or trading military technologies to hold a special license. This is not bureaucratic red tape, but a security filter: the state must know who has access to sensitive solutions. The same goes for classified data – security clearances are mandatory for both the company and key employees. In practice, this creates a high entry barrier. Very few IT firms in Poland even hold such authorizations – Transition Technologies MS (TTMS), for example, highlights that it belongs to a select group of companies with the full set of licenses, NATO Secret certificates, and vetted specialists able to work on defense projects. In short: not every smart startup coder with a laptop can just start writing code for the army. Earning trust requires formal certifications. 2. Military technology must never fail The second reason is reliability and quality. In defense, there’s no room for the startup mantra “move fast and break things.” Software for the military must work flawlessly under combat conditions, interference, and cyberattacks. A bug, crash, or hacker exploit – things tolerated in civilian apps – on the battlefield can cost lives. That’s why suppliers must meet stringent NATO quality standards (AQAP) and information security norms (ISO 27001) from day one. Building command or communication systems requires domain expertise, hardware integration skills, and familiarity with NATO STANAG standards. Such capabilities are not built overnight – firms acquire them through years of collaboration with the military. “We’ll build you an anti-drone app cheap and fast” is not a serious pitch, unless you can prove it will hold up in the harshest scenarios. The per-unit cost of a drone is not the whole story – what really matters is the guarantee that defensive systems will work when lives depend on it. 3. Control over technology and supply chains Another factor is state control over military technology. Defense systems cannot end up in the wrong hands – neither during development nor deployment. That’s why licenses and approvals act as safety sieves, filtering out players linked to hostile interests. Governments must also have visibility across the supply chain: what goes into a system, where components come from, whether chips or code are free of backdoors. Major defense contractors provide this assurance, with vetted subcontractors and strict audits. Opening the market indiscriminately would be playing with fire. In today’s hybrid warfare environment, adversaries would happily exploit any loophole, inserting compromised technologies under the guise of “cheap innovation.” This is not about protecting incumbents – it’s about ensuring that any new entrant undergoes rigorous vetting before touching sensitive projects. 4. Responsibility and continuity matter more than short-term savings Calls to open the defense market often emphasize price competition (“it will be cheaper”) and fresh ideas (“startups will save us”). What gets overlooked are the business risks. Defense contracts last for decades, requiring ongoing support, updates, and servicing. That’s why ministries demand financial stability and long-term reliability. A company that appears one day and disappears the next is the last thing the military can afford in the middle of a weapons program. References, proven track records, and the ability to sustain projects through long procurement cycles are essential. A new player may offer a lower price, but can they shoulder the responsibility when problems arise? Defense projects are not about one-off deliveries – they’re about lifecycle support. Large, established integrators dominate not by chance, but because they take on the long-term risk and responsibility. For smaller IT firms, there’s a safer route: joining as subcontractors under licensed contractors. TTMS, for instance, has entered defense projects in partnership with larger entities, combining expertise under controlled frameworks. This allows innovation to flow from smaller players without compromising security or accountability. 5. Allied commitments and international standards Finally, Poland operates within NATO and the EU. That means uniform standards and procedures for military hardware and software – certifications like AQAP, NCAGE codes, interoperability requirements. “Opening the market” cannot mean lowering these standards, as it would undermine Poland’s credibility as a NATO ally. Instead, what is actually happening is streamlining – faster procurement processes, less red tape, but without dropping the bar. A recent defense “special act,” for instance, allows for faster drone procurement outside normal public procurement law – provided the drones pass army testing and receive Ministry of Defense approval. This is the model: speed where possible, but with strict oversight. Similarly, Polish authorities stress partnerships: simplifying procedures so SMEs and startups can join consortia with larger defense contractors – rather than bypassing safeguards altogether. 6. Conclusion: security is costly – but insecurity costs more The clash of cheap drones and expensive missiles highlights a real challenge. Of course, we must pursue smarter, cheaper defense tools – intercepting drones with other drones, electronic jamming, lasers. And Poland is working on these, often through public-private partnerships. But throwing open the gates to any company with a “cheap idea” is a dangerous shortcut. Defense requirements are expensive and demanding for a reason: they protect us from failure, espionage, and chaos. Removing them may save money on paper but would risk far greater losses in reality. The better path is to streamline procedures, speed up certifications, and bring smaller innovators in through controlled cooperation with licensed partners. In defense, the old maxim applies: “make haste slowly.” Move fast, yes – but never at the cost of security. Because in the end, cheap enemy drones could cost us far more than expensive missiles if we get this wrong. For a deeper dive into the specific challenges and barriers IT companies face when entering the defense sector, read our full analysis here.
Read
RAG Meaning in Business: The Ultimate 2025 Guide to Understanding and Using RAG Effectively
When the topic of artificial intelligence comes up today in boardrooms and at industry conferences, one short term is heard more and more often – RAG. It is no longer just a technical acronym, but a concept that is beginning to reshape how companies think about AI-powered tools. Understanding what RAG really is has become a necessity for business leaders, because it determines whether newly implemented software will serve as a precise and up-to-date tool, or just another trendy gadget with little value to the organization. In this guide, we will explain what Retrieval-Augmented Generation actually is, how it works in practice, and why it holds such importance for business. We will also show how RAG improves the accuracy of answers generated by AI systems by allowing them to draw on always current and contextual information. 1. Understanding RAG: The Technology Transforming Business Intelligence 1.1 What is RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation)? RAG technology tackles one of the biggest headaches facing modern businesses: how do you make AI systems work with current, accurate, and company-specific information? Traditional AI models only know what they learned during training, but rag ai does something different. It combines powerful language models with the ability to pull information from external databases, documents, and knowledge repositories in real-time. Here’s the rag ai definition in simple terms: it’s retrieval and generation working as a team. When someone asks a question, the system first hunts through relevant data sources to find useful information, then uses that content to craft a comprehensive, accurate response. This means AI outputs stay current, factually grounded, and tailored to specific business situations instead of giving generic or outdated answers. What makes RAG particularly valuable is how it handles proprietary data. Companies can plug their internal documents, customer databases, product catalogs, and operational manuals directly into the AI system. Employees and customers get responses that reflect the latest company policies, product specs, and procedural updates without needing to constantly retrain the underlying AI model. 1.2 RAG vs Traditional AI: Key Differences Traditional AI systems work like a closed book test. They generate responses based only on what they learned during their initial training phase. This creates real problems for business applications, especially when you’re dealing with rapidly changing information, industry-specific knowledge, or proprietary company data that wasn’t part of the original training. RAG and LLM technologies operate differently by staying connected to external information sources. While a standard language model might give you generic advice about customer service best practices, a RAG-powered system can access your company’s actual customer service protocols, recent policy changes, and current product information to provide guidance that matches your organization’s real procedures. The difference in how they’re built is fundamental. Traditional generative AI works as a closed system, processing inputs through pre-trained parameters to produce outputs. RAG systems add extra components like retrievers, vector databases, and integration layers that enable continuous access to evolving information. This setup also supports transparency through source attribution, so users can see exactly where information came from and verify its accuracy. 2. Why RAG Technology Matters for Modern Businesses 2.1 Current Business Challenges RAG Solves Many companies still struggle with information silos – different departments maintain their own databases and systems, making it difficult to use information effectively across the entire organization.RAG technology doesn’t dismantle silos but provides a way to navigate them efficiently. Through real-time retrieval and generation, AI can pull data from multiple sources – databases, documents, or knowledge repositories – and merge it into coherent, context-rich responses. As a result, users receive up-to-date, fact-based information without having to manually search through scattered systems or rely on costly retraining of AI models. Another challenge is keeping AI systems current. Traditionally, this has required expensive and time-consuming retraining cycles whenever business conditions, regulations, or procedures change. RAG works differently – it leverages live data from connected sources, ensuring that AI responses always reflect the latest information without modifying the underlying model. The technology also strengthens quality control. Every response generated by the system can be grounded in specific, verifiable sources. This is especially critical in regulated industries, where accuracy, compliance, and full transparency are essential. 3. How RAG Works: A Business-Focused Breakdown 3.1 The Four-Step RAG Process Understanding how rag works requires examining the systematic process that transforms user queries into accurate, contextually relevant responses. This process begins when users submit questions or requests through business applications, customer service interfaces, or internal knowledge management systems. 3.1.1 Data Retrieval and Indexing The foundation of effective RAG implementation lies in comprehensive data preparation and indexing strategies. Organizations must first identify and catalog all relevant information sources including structured databases, unstructured documents, multimedia content, and external data feeds that should be accessible to the RAG system. Information from these diverse sources undergoes preprocessing to ensure consistency, accuracy, and searchability. This preparation includes converting documents into machine-readable formats, extracting key information elements, and creating vector representations that enable semantic search capabilities. The resulting indexed information becomes immediately available for retrieval without requiring modifications to the underlying AI model. Modern indexing approaches use advanced embedding techniques that capture semantic meaning and contextual relationships within business information. This capability enables the system to identify relevant content even when user queries don’t exactly match the terminology used in source documents, improving the breadth and accuracy of information retrieval. 3.1.2 Query Processing and Matching When users submit queries, the system transforms their natural language requests into vector representations that can be compared against the indexed information repository. This transformation process captures semantic similarity and contextual relationships, rather than relying solely on keyword matching techniques. While embeddings allow the system to reflect user intent more effectively than keywords, it is important to note that this is a mathematical approximation of meaning, not human-level understanding. Advanced matching algorithms evaluate similarity between query vectors and indexed content vectors to identify the most relevant information sources. The system may retrieve multiple relevant documents or data segments to ensure comprehensive coverage of the user’s information needs while maintaining focus on the most pertinent content. Query processing can also incorporate business context and user permissions, but this depends on how the system is implemented. In enterprise environments, such mechanisms are often necessary to ensure that retrieved information complies with security policies and access controls, where different users have access to different categories of sensitive or restricted information. 3.1.3 Content Augmentation Retrieved information is combined with the original user query to create an augmented prompt that provides the AI system with richer context for generating responses. This process structures the input so that retrieved data is highlighted and encouraged to take precedence over the AI model’s internal training knowledge, although the final output still depends on how the model balances both sources. Prompt engineering techniques guide the AI system in using external information effectively, for example by instructing it to prioritize retrieved documents, resolve potential conflicts between sources, format outputs in specific ways, or maintain an appropriate tone for business communication. The quality of this augmentation step directly affects the accuracy and relevance of responses. Well-designed strategies find the right balance between including enough supporting data and focusing the model’s attention on the most important elements, ensuring that generated outputs remain both precise and contextually appropriate. 3.1.4 Response Generation The AI model synthesizes information from the augmented prompt to generate comprehensive responses that address user queries while incorporating relevant business data. This process maintains natural language flow and encourages inclusion of retrieved content, though the level of completeness depends on how effectively the system structures and prioritizes input information. In enterprise RAG implementations, additional quality control mechanisms can be applied to improve accuracy and reliability. These may involve cross-checking outputs against retrieved documents, verifying consistency, or optimizing format and tone to meet professional communication standards. Such safeguards are not intrinsic to the language model itself but are built into the overall RAG workflow. Final responses frequently include source citations or references, enabling users to verify accuracy and explore supporting details. This transparency strengthens trust in AI-generated outputs while supporting compliance, audit requirements, and quality assurance processes. 3.2 RAG Architecture Components Modern RAG systems combine several core components that deliver reliable, accurate, and scalable business intelligence. The retriever identifies the most relevant fragments of information from indexed sources using semantic search and similarity matching. Vector databases act as the storage and retrieval backbone, enabling fast similarity searches across large volumes of mainly unstructured content, with structured data often transformed into text for processing. These databases are designed for high scalability without performance loss. Integration layers connect RAG with existing business applications through APIs, platform connectors, and middleware, ensuring that it operates smoothly within current workflows. Security frameworks and access controls are also built into these layers to maintain data protection and compliance standards. 3.3 Integration with Existing Business Systems Successful RAG deployment depends on how well it integrates with existing IT infrastructure and business workflows. Organizations should assess their current technology stack to identify integration points and potential challenges. API-driven integration allows RAG systems to access CRM, ERP, document management, and other enterprise applications without major system redesign. This reduces disruption and maximizes the value of existing technology investments. Because RAG systems often handle sensitive information, role-based access controls, audit logs, and encryption protocols are essential to maintain compliance and protect data across connected platforms. 4. Business Applications and Use Cases 4.1 AI4Legal – RAG in service of law and compliance AI4Legal was created for lawyers and compliance departments. By combining internal documents with legal databases, it enables efficient analysis of regulations, case law, and legal frameworks. This tool not only speeds up the preparation of legal opinions and compliance reports but also minimizes the risk of errors, as every answer is anchored in a verified source. 4.2 AI4Content – intelligent content creation with RAG AI4Content supports marketing and content teams that face the daily challenge of producing large volumes of materials. It generates texts consistent with brand guidelines, rooted in the business context, and free of factual mistakes. This solution eliminates tedious editing work and allows teams to focus on creativity. 4.3 AI4E-learning – personalized training powered by RAG AI4E-learning addresses the growing need for personalized learning and employee development. Based on company procedures and documentation, it generates quizzes, courses, and educational resources tailored to the learner’s profile. As a result, training becomes more engaging, while the process of creating content takes significantly less time. 4.4 AI4Knowledge Base – intelligent knowledge management for enterprises At the heart of knowledge management lies AI4Knowledge Base, an intelligent hub that integrates dispersed information sources within an organization. Employees no longer need to search across multiple systems – they can simply ask a question and receive a reliable answer. This solution is particularly valuable in large companies and customer support teams, where quick access to information translates into better decisions and smoother operations. 4.5 AI4Localisation – automated translation and content localization For global needs, AI4Localisation automates translation and localization processes. Using translation memories and corporate glossaries, it ensures terminology consistency and accelerates time-to-market for materials across new regions. This tool is ideal for international organizations where translation speed and quality directly impact customer communication. 5. Benefits of Implementing RAG in Business 5.1 More accurate and reliable answers RAG ensures AI responses are based on verified sources rather than outdated training data. This reduces the risk of mistakes that could harm operations or customer trust. Every answer can be traced back to its source, which builds confidence and helps meet audit requirements. Most importantly, all users receive consistent information instead of varying responses. 5.2 Real-time access to information With RAG, AI can use the latest data without retraining the model. Any updates to policies, offers, or regulations are instantly reflected in responses. This is crucial in fast-moving industries, where outdated information can lead to poor decisions or compliance issues. 5.3 Better customer experience Customers get fast, accurate, and personalized answers that reflect current product details, services, or account information. This reduces frustration and builds loyalty. RAG-powered self-service systems can even handle complex questions, while support teams resolve issues faster and more effectively. 5.4 Lower costs and higher efficiency RAG automates time-consuming tasks like information searches or report preparation. Companies can manage higher workloads without hiring more staff. New employees get up to speed faster by accessing knowledge through conversational AI instead of lengthy training programs. Maintenance costs also drop, since updating a knowledge base is simpler than retraining a model. 5.5 Scalability and flexibility RAG systems grow with your business, handling more data and users without losing quality. Their modular design makes it easy to add new data sources or interfaces. They also combine knowledge across departments, providing cross-functional insights that drive agility and better decision-making. 6. Common Challenges and Solutions 6.1 Data Quality and Management Issues The effectiveness of RAG implementations depends heavily on the quality, accuracy, and currency of underlying information sources. Poor data quality can undermine system performance and user trust, making comprehensive data governance essential for successful RAG deployment and operation. Organizations must establish clear data quality standards, regular validation processes, and update procedures to maintain information accuracy across all sources accessible to RAG systems. This governance includes identifying authoritative sources, establishing update responsibilities, and implementing quality control checkpoints. Data consistency challenges arise when information exists across multiple systems with different formats, terminology, or update schedules. RAG implementations require standardization efforts and integration strategies that reconcile these differences while maintaining information integrity and accessibility. 6.2 Integration Complexity Connecting RAG systems to diverse business platforms and data sources can present significant technical and organizational challenges. Legacy systems may lack modern APIs, security protocols may need updating, and data formats may require transformation to support effective RAG integration. Phased implementation approaches help manage integration complexity by focusing on high-value use cases and gradually expanding system capabilities. This strategy enables organizations to gain experience with RAG technology while managing risk and resource requirements effectively. Standardized integration frameworks and middleware solutions can simplify connection challenges while providing flexibility for future expansion. These approaches reduce technical complexity while ensuring compatibility with existing business systems and security requirements. 6.3 Security and Privacy Concerns RAG systems require access to sensitive business information, creating potential security vulnerabilities if not properly designed and implemented. Organizations must establish comprehensive security frameworks that protect data throughout the retrieval, processing, and response generation workflow. Access control mechanisms ensure that RAG systems respect existing permission structures and user authorization levels. This capability becomes particularly important in enterprise environments where different users should have access to different types of information based on their roles and responsibilities. Audit and compliance requirements may necessitate detailed logging of information access, user interactions, and system decisions. RAG implementations must include appropriate monitoring and reporting capabilities to support regulatory compliance and internal governance requirements. 6.4 Performance and Latency Challenges Real-time information retrieval and processing can impact system responsiveness, particularly when accessing large information repositories or complex integration environments. Organizations must balance comprehensive information access with acceptable response times for user interactions. Optimization strategies include intelligent caching, pre-processing of common queries, and efficient vector database configurations that minimize retrieval latency. These approaches maintain system performance while ensuring comprehensive information access for user queries. Scalability planning becomes important as user adoption increases and information repositories grow. RAG systems must be designed to handle increased demand without degrading performance or compromising information accuracy and relevance. 6.5 Change Management and User Adoption Successful RAG implementation requires user acceptance and adaptation of new workflows that incorporate AI-powered information access. Resistance to change can limit system value realization even when technical implementation is successful. Training and education programs help users understand RAG capabilities and learn effective interaction techniques. These programs should focus on practical benefits and demonstrate how RAG systems improve daily work experiences rather than focusing solely on technical features. Continuous feedback collection and system refinement based on user experiences improve adoption rates while ensuring that RAG implementations meet actual business needs rather than theoretical requirements. This iterative approach builds user confidence while optimizing system performance. 7. Future of RAG in Business (2025 and Beyond) 7.1 Emerging Trends and Technologies The RAG technology landscape continues evolving with innovations that enhance business applicability and value creation potential.Multimodal RAG systems that process text, images, audio, and structured data simultaneously are expanding application possibilities across industries requiring comprehensive information synthesis from diverse sources. AI4Knowledge Base by TTMS is precisely such a tool, enabling intelligent integration and analysis of knowledge in multiple formats. Hybrid RAG architectures that combine semantic search with vector-based methods will drive real-time, context-aware responses, enhancing the precision and usefulness of enterprise AI applications. These solutions enable more advanced information retrieval and processing capabilities to address complex business intelligence requirements. Agent-based RAG architectures introduce autonomous decision-making capabilities, allowing AI systems to execute complex workflows, learn from interactions, and adapt to evolving business needs. Personalized RAG and on-device AI will deliver highly contextual outputs processed locally to reduce latency, safeguard privacy, and optimize efficiency. 7.2 Expert Predictions Experts predict that RAG will soon become a standard across industries, as it enables organizations to use their own data without exposing it to public chatbots. Yet AI hallucinations “are here to stay” – these tools can reduce mistakes, but they cannot replace critical thinking and fact-checking. Healthcare applications will see particularly strong growth, as RAG systems enable personalized diagnostics by integrating real-time patient data with medical literature, reducing diagnostic errors. Financial services will benefit from hybrid RAG improvements in fraud detection by combining structured transaction data and unstructured online sources for more accurate risk analysis. A good example of RAG’s high effectiveness for the medical field is the study by YH Ke et al., which demonstrated its value in the context of surgery — the LLM-RAG model with GPT-4 achieved 96.4% accuracy in determining a patient’s fitness for surgery, outperforming both humans and non-RAG models. 7.3 Preparation Strategies for Businesses Organizations that want to fully unlock the potential of RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) should begin with strong foundations. The key lies in building transparent data governance principles, enhancing information architecture, investing in employee development, and adopting tools that already have this technology implemented. In this process, technology partnerships play a crucial role. Collaboration with an experienced provider – such as TTMS – helps shorten implementation time, reduce risks, and leverage proven methodologies. Our AI solutions, such as AI4Legal and AI4Content, are prime examples of how RAG can be effectively applied and tailored to specific industry requirements. The future of business intelligence belongs to organizations that can seamlessly integrate RAG into their daily operations without losing sight of business objectives and user value. Those ready to embrace this evolution will gain a significant competitive advantage: faster and more accurate decision-making, improved operational efficiency, and enhanced customer experiences through intelligent knowledge access and synthesis. Do you need to integrate RAG? Contact us now!
Read
EU AI Act Update 2025: Code of Practice, Enforcement & Industry Reactions
EU AI Act Latest Developments: Code of Practice, Enforcement, Timeline & Industry Reactions The European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act (EU AI Act) is entering a critical new phase of implementation in 2025. As a follow-up to our February 2025 introduction to this landmark regulation, this article examines the latest developments shaping its rollout. We cover the newly finalized Code of Practice for general-purpose AI (GPAI), the enforcement powers of the European AI Office, a timeline of implementation from August 2025 through 2027, early reactions from AI industry leaders like xAI, Meta, and Google, and strategic guidance to help business leaders ensure compliance and protect their reputations. General-Purpose AI Code of Practice: A Voluntary Compliance Framework One of the most significant recent milestones is the release of the General-Purpose AI (GPAI) Code of Practice – a comprehensive set of voluntary guidelines intended to help AI providers meet the EU AI Act’s requirements for foundation models. Published on July 10, 2025, the Code was developed by independent experts through a multi-stakeholder process and endorsed by the European Commission’s new AI Office. It serves as a non-binding framework covering three key areas: transparency, copyright compliance, and safety and security in advanced AI models. In practice, this means GPAI providers (think developers of large language models, generative AI systems, etc.) are given concrete measures and documentation templates to ensure they disclose necessary information, respect intellectual property laws, and mitigate any systemic risks from their most powerful models. Although adhering to the Code is optional, it offers a crucial benefit: a “presumption of conformity” with the AI Act. In other words, companies that sign on to the Code are deemed to comply with the law’s GPAI obligations, enjoying greater legal certainty and a lighter administrative burden in audits and assessments. This carrot-and-stick approach strongly incentivizes major AI providers to participate. Indeed, within weeks of the Code’s publication, dozens of tech firms – including Amazon, Google, Microsoft, OpenAI, Anthropic and others – had voluntarily signed on as early signatories, signalling their intent to follow these best practices. The Code’s endorsement by the European Commission and the EU’s AI Board (a body of member state regulators) in August 2025 further cemented its status as an authoritative compliance tool. Providers that choose not to adhere to the Code will face stricter scrutiny: they must independently prove to regulators how their alternative measures fulfill each requirement of the AI Act. The European AI Office: Central Enforcer and AI Oversight Hub To oversee and enforce the EU AI Act, the European Commission established a dedicated regulator known as the European AI Office in early 2024. Housed within the Commission’s DG CONNECT, this office serves as the EU-wide center of AI expertise and enforcement coordination. Its primary role is to monitor, supervise, and ensure compliance with the AI Act’s rules – especially for general-purpose AI models – across all 27 Member States. The AI Office has been empowered with significant enforcement tools: it can conduct evaluations of AI models, demand technical documentation and information from AI providers, require corrective measures for non-compliance, and even recommend sanctions or fines in serious cases. Importantly, the AI Office is responsible for drawing up and updating codes of practice (like the GPAI Code) under Article 56 of the Act, and it acts as the Secretariat for the new European AI Board, which coordinates national regulators. In practical terms, the European AI Office will work hand-in-hand with Member States’ authorities to achieve consistent enforcement. For example, if a general-purpose AI model is suspected of non-compliance or poses unforeseen systemic risks, the AI Office can launch an investigation in collaboration with national market surveillance agencies. It will help organize joint investigations across borders when the same AI system is deployed in multiple countries, ensuring that issues like biased algorithms or unsafe AI deployments are addressed uniformly. By facilitating information-sharing and guiding national regulators (similar to how the European Data Protection Board works under GDPR), the AI Office aims to prevent regulatory fragmentation. As a central hub, it also represents the EU in international AI governance discussions and oversees innovation-friendly measures like AI sandboxes (controlled environments for testing AI) and SME support programs. For business leaders, this means there is now a one-stop European authority focusing on AI compliance – companies can expect the AI Office to issue guidance, handle certain approvals or registrations, and lead major enforcement actions for AI systems that transcend individual countries’ jurisdictions. Timeline for AI Act Implementation: August 2025 to 2027 The EU AI Act is being rolled out in phases, with key obligations kicking in between 2025 and 2027. The regulation formally entered into force on August 1, 2024, but its provisions were not all active immediately. Instead, a staggered timeline gives organizations time to adapt. The first milestone came just six months in: by February 2025, the Act’s bans on certain “unacceptable-risk” AI practices (e.g. social scoring, exploitative manipulation of vulnerable groups, and real-time remote biometric identification in public for law enforcement) became legally binding. Any AI system falling under these prohibited categories must have been ceased or removed from the EU market by that date, marking an early test of compliance. Next, on August 2, 2025, the rules for general-purpose AI models take effect. From this date forward, any new foundation model or large-scale AI system (meeting the GPAI definition) introduced to the EU market is required to comply with the AI Act’s transparency, safety, and copyright measures. This includes providing detailed technical documentation to regulators and users, disclosing the data used for training (at least in summary form), and implementing risk mitigation for advanced models. Notably, there is an important grace period for existing AI models that were already on the market before August 2025: those providers have until August 2, 2027 to bring legacy models and their documentation into full compliance. This two-year transitional window acknowledges that updating already-deployed AI systems (and retrofitting documentation or risk controls) takes time. During this period, voluntary tools like the GPAI Code of Practice serve as an interim compliance bridge, helping companies align with requirements before formal standards are finalized around 2027. The AI Act’s remaining obligations phase in by 2026-2027. By August 2026 (two years post-entry into force), the majority of provisions become fully applicable, including requirements for high-risk AI systems in areas like healthcare, finance, employment, and critical infrastructure. These high-risk systems – which must undergo conformity assessments, logging, human oversight, and more – have a slightly longer lead time, with their compliance deadline at the three-year mark (around late 2027) according to the legislation. In effect, the period from mid-2025 through 2027 is when companies will feel the AI Act’s bite: first in the generative and general-purpose AI domain, and subsequently across regulated industry-specific AI applications. Businesses should mark August 2025 and August 2026 on their calendars for incremental responsibilities, with August 2027 as the horizon by which all AI systems in scope need to meet the new EU standards. Regulators have also indicated that formal “harmonized standards” for AI (technical standards developed via European standards organizations) are expected by 2027 to further streamline compliance. Industry Reactions: What xAI, Google, and Meta Reveal How have AI companies responded so far to this evolving regulatory landscape? Early signals from industry leaders provide a telling snapshot of both support and concern. On one hand, many big players have publicly embraced the EU’s approach. For example, Google affirmed it would sign the new Code of Practice, and Microsoft’s President Brad Smith indicated Microsoft was likely to do the same. Numerous AI developers see value in the coherence and stability that the AI Act promises – by harmonizing rules across Europe, it can reduce legal uncertainty and potentially raise user trust in AI products. This supportive camp is evidenced by the long list of initial Code of Practice signatories, which includes not just enterprise tech giants but also a range of startups and research-focused firms from Europe and abroad. On the other hand, some prominent companies have voiced reservations or chosen a more cautious engagement. Notably, Elon Musk’s AI venture xAI made headlines in July 2025 by agreeing to sign only the “Safety and Security” chapter of the GPAI Code – and pointedly not the transparency or copyright sections. In a public statement, xAI said that while it “supports AI safety” and will adhere to the safety chapter, it finds the Act’s other parts “profoundly detrimental to innovation” and believes the copyright rules represent an overreach. This partial compliance stance suggests a concern that overly strict transparency or data disclosure mandates could expose proprietary information or stifle competitive advantage. Likewise, Meta (Facebook’s parent company) took a more oppositional stance: Meta declined to sign the Code of Practice at all, arguing that the voluntary Code introduces “legal uncertainties for model developers” and imposes measures that go “far beyond the scope of the AI Act”. In other words, Meta felt the Code’s commitments might be too onerous or premature, given that they extend into areas not explicitly dictated by the law itself (Meta has been particularly vocal about issues like open-source model obligations and copyright filters, which the company sees as problematic). These divergent reactions reveal an industry both cognizant of AI’s societal risks and wary of regulatory constraints. Companies like Google and OpenAI, by quickly endorsing the Code of Practice, signal that they are willing to meet higher transparency and safety bars – possibly to pre-empt stricter enforcement and to position themselves as responsible leaders. In contrast, pushback from players like Meta and the nuanced participation of xAI highlight a fear that EU rules might undercut competitiveness or force unwanted disclosures of AI training data and methods. It’s also telling that some governments and experts share these concerns; for instance, during the Code’s approval, one EU member state (Belgium) reportedly raised objections about gaps in the copyright chapter, reflecting ongoing debates about how best to balance innovation with regulation. As the AI Act moves from paper to practice, expect continued dialogue between regulators and industry. The European Commission has indicated it will update the Code of Practice as technology evolves, and companies – even skeptics – will likely engage in that process to make their voices heard. Strategic Guidance for Business Leaders With the EU AI Act’s requirements steadily coming into force, business leaders should take proactive steps now to ensure compliance and manage both legal and reputational risks. Here are key strategic considerations for organizations deploying or developing AI: Audit Your AI Portfolio and Risk-Classify Systems: Begin by mapping out all AI systems, tools, or models your company uses or provides. Determine which ones might fall under the AI Act’s definitions of high-risk AI systems (e.g. AI in regulated fields like health, finance, HR, etc.) or general-purpose AI models (broad AI models that could be adapted to many tasks). This risk classification is essential – high-risk systems will need to meet stricter requirements (e.g. conformity assessments, documentation, human oversight), while GPAI providers have specific transparency and safety obligations. By understanding where each AI system stands, you can prioritize compliance efforts on the most critical areas. Establish AI Governance and Compliance Processes: Treat AI compliance as a cross-functional responsibility involving your legal, IT, data science, and risk management teams. Develop internal guidelines or an AI governance framework aligned with the AI Act. For high-risk AI applications, this means creating processes for thorough risk assessments, data quality checks, record-keeping, and human-in-the-loop oversight before deployment. For general-purpose AI development, implement procedures to document training data sources, methodologies to mitigate biases or errors, and security testing for model outputs. Many companies are appointing “AI compliance leads” or committees to oversee these tasks and to stay updated on regulatory guidance. Leverage the GPAI Code of Practice and Standards: If your organization develops large AI models or foundation models, consider signing onto the EU’s GPAI Code of Practice or at least using it as a blueprint. Adhering to this voluntary Code can serve as evidence of good-faith compliance efforts and will likely satisfy regulators that you meet the AI Act’s requirements during this interim period before formal standards arrive. Even if you choose not to formally sign, the Code’s recommendations on transparency (like providing model documentation forms), on copyright compliance (such as policies for respecting copyrighted training data), and on safety (like conducting adversarial testing and red-teaming of models) are valuable best practices that can improve your risk posture. Monitor Regulatory Updates and Engage: The AI regulatory environment will continue evolving through 2026 and beyond. Keep an eye on communications from the European AI Office and the AI Board – they will issue guidelines, Q&As, and possibly clarification on ambiguous points in the Act. It’s wise to budget for legal review of these updates and to participate in industry forums or consultations if possible. Engaging with regulators (directly or through industry associations) can give your company a voice in how rules are interpreted, such as shaping upcoming harmonized standards or future revisions of the Code of Practice. Proactive engagement can also demonstrate your commitment to responsible AI, which can be a reputational asset. Prepare for Transparency and Customer Communications: A often overlooked aspect of the AI Act is the emphasis on transparency not just to regulators but also to users. High-risk AI systems will require user notifications (e.g. that they are interacting with AI and not a human in certain cases), and AI-generated content may need labels. Start preparing plain-language disclosures about your AI’s capabilities and limits. Additionally, consider how you’ll handle inquiries or audits – if an EU regulator or the AI Office asks for your algorithmic documentation or evidence of risk controls, having those materials ready will expedite the process and avoid last-minute scrambles. Being transparent and forthcoming can also boost public trust, turning compliance into a competitive advantage rather than just a checkbox. Finally, business leaders should view compliance not as a static checkbox but as part of building a broader culture of trustworthy AI. The EU AI Act has put ethics and human rights at the center of AI governance. Companies that align with these values – prioritizing user safety, fairness, and accountability in AI – stand to strengthen their brand reputation. Conversely, a failure to comply or a high-profile AI incident (such as a biased outcome or safety failure) could invite not only regulatory penalties (up to €35 million or 7% of global turnover for the worst violations) but also public backlash. In the coming years, investors, customers, and partners are likely to favor businesses that can demonstrate their AI is well-governed and compliant. By taking the steps above, organizations can mitigate legal risk, avoid last-minute fire drills as deadlines loom, and position themselves as leaders in the emerging era of AI regulation. TTMS AI Solutions – Automate With Confidence As the EU AI Act moves from paper to practice, organizations need practical tools that balance compliance, performance, and speed. Transition Technologies MS (TTMS) delivers enterprise-grade AI solutions that are secure, scalable, and tailored to real business workflows. AI4Legal – Automation for legal teams: accelerate document review, drafting, and case summarization while maintaining traceability and control. AI4Content – Document analysis at scale: process and synthesize reports, forms, and transcripts into structured, decision-ready outputs. AI4E-Learning – Training content, faster: transform internal materials into modular courses with quizzes, instructors’ notes, and easy editing. AI4Knowledge – Find answers, not files: a central knowledge hub with natural-language search to cut time spent hunting for procedures and know-how. AI4Localisation – Multilingual at enterprise pace: context-aware translations tuned for tone, terminology, and brand consistency across markets. AML Track – Automated AML compliance: streamline KYC, PEP and sanctions screening, ongoing monitoring, and audit-ready reporting in one platform. Our experts partner with your teams end-to-end – from scoping and governance to integration and change management – so you get measurable impact, not just another tool. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) When will the EU AI Act be fully enforced, and what are the key dates? The EU AI Act is being phased in over several years. It formally took effect in August 2024, but its requirements activate at different milestones. The ban on certain unacceptable AI practices (like social scoring and manipulative AI) started in February 2025. By August 2, 2025, rules for general-purpose AI models (foundation models) become applicable – any new AI model introduced after that date must comply. Most other provisions, including obligations for many high-risk AI systems, kick in by August 2026 (two years after entry into force). One final deadline is August 2027, by which providers of existing AI models (those that were on the market before the Act) need to bring those systems into compliance. In short, the period from mid-2025 through 2027 is when the AI Act’s requirements gradually turn from theory into practice. What is the Code of Practice for General-Purpose AI, and do companies have to sign it? The Code of Practice for GPAI is a voluntary set of guidelines designed to help AI model providers comply with the EU AI Act’s rules on general-purpose AI (like large language models or generative AI systems). It covers best practices for transparency (documenting how the AI was developed and its limitations), copyright (ensuring respect for intellectual property in training data), and safety/security (testing and mitigating risks from powerful AI models). Companies do not have to sign the Code – it’s optional – but there’s a big incentive to do so. If you adhere to the Code, regulators will presume you’re meeting the AI Act’s requirements (“presumption of conformity”), which gives you legal reassurance. Many major AI firms have signed on already. However, if a company chooses not to follow the Code, it must independently demonstrate compliance through other means. In summary, the Code isn’t mandatory, but it’s a highly recommended shortcut to compliance for those who develop general-purpose AI. How will the European AI Office enforce the AI Act, and what powers does it have? The European AI Office is a new EU-level regulator set up to ensure the AI Act is applied consistently across all member states. Think of it as Europe’s central AI “watchdog.” The AI Office has several important enforcement powers: it can request detailed information and technical documentation from companies about their AI systems, conduct evaluations and tests on AI models (especially the big general-purpose models) to check for compliance, and coordinate investigations if an AI system is suspected to violate the rules. While daily enforcement (like market checks or handling complaints) will still involve national authorities in each EU country, the AI Office guides and unifies these efforts, much like the European Data Protection Board does for privacy law. The AI Office can also help initiate penalties – under the AI Act, fines can be steep (up to €35 million or 7% of global annual revenue for serious breaches). In essence, the AI Office will be the go-to authority at the EU level: drafting guidance, managing the Code of Practice, and making sure companies don’t fall through the cracks of different national regulators. Does the EU AI Act affect non-EU companies, such as American or Asian firms? Yes. The AI Act has an extraterritorial scope very similar to the EU’s GDPR. If a company outside Europe is providing an AI system or service that is used in the EU or affects people in the EU, that company is expected to comply with the AI Act for those activities. It doesn’t matter where the company is headquartered or where the AI model was developed – what matters is the impact on the European market or users. For instance, if a U.S. tech company offers a generative AI tool to EU customers, or an Asian manufacturer sells a robot with AI capabilities into Europe, they fall under the Act’s provisions. Non-EU firms might need to appoint an EU representative (a local point of contact) for regulatory purposes, and they will face the same obligations (and potential fines) as European companies for non-compliance. In short, if your AI touches Europe, assume the EU AI Act applies. How should businesses start preparing for EU AI Act compliance now? To prepare, businesses should take a multi-pronged approach: First, educate your leadership and product teams about the AI Act’s requirements and identify which of your AI systems are impacted. Next, conduct a gap analysis or audit of those systems – do you have the necessary documentation, risk controls, and transparency measures in place? If not, start implementing them. It’s wise to establish an internal AI governance program, bringing together legal, technical, and operational stakeholders to oversee compliance. For companies building AI models, consider following the EU’s Code of Practice for GPAI as a framework. Also, update contracts and supply chain checks – ensure that any AI tech you procure from vendors meets EU standards (you may need assurances or compliance clauses from your providers). Finally, stay agile: keep track of new guidelines from the European AI Office or any standardization efforts, as these will further clarify what regulators expect. By acting early – well before the major 2025 and 2026 deadlines – businesses can avoid scrambling last-minute and use compliance as an opportunity to bolster trust in their AI offerings.
Read
Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) in Space Projects – Explanation and Significance
Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) are a measurement scale for assessing the maturity of a technology, widely used in the space industry (and beyond) to evaluate how far a new technology has progressed towards practical use. The scale consists of nine levels, from TRL 1 at the very beginning of an idea or concept, up to TRL 9 which denotes a fully mature technology proven in real operational conditions. This framework was originally developed by NASA in the 1970s and later adopted by organizations like the U.S. Department of Defense, the European Space Agency (ESA), and the European Union to ensure consistent discussions of technology maturity across different projects. In essence, TRLs provide a common language for engineers, managers, and investors to gauge how ready a technology is for deployment. What Are Technology Readiness Levels? In simple terms, a technology’s TRL indicates how far along it is in development, from the earliest theoretical research to a functioning system in the field. A new concept starts at the lowest level (TRL 1) and advances through experimentation, prototyping, and testing until it reaches the highest level (TRL 9), meaning it has been proven in an actual operational environment (for space projects, this typically means a successful flight mission). Each step up the TRL ladder represents a milestone in the project’s evolution, reducing technical uncertainties and moving closer to application. Originally introduced by NASA, the TRL scale quickly became a standard in project management because it helps quantify progress and risk – a TRL 3 technology (for example) is understood to be at an early lab demonstration stage, whereas a TRL 7 or 8 technology is nearing real-world use. This common understanding is valuable for planning, funding decisions, and cross-team communication in complex aerospace projects. The 9 Levels of the TRL Scale According to NASA and other agencies, the TRL scale is defined as follows: TRL 1 – Basic Principles Observed: Scientific research is just beginning. The fundamental principles of a new concept are observed and reported, but practical applications are not yet developed. (This is essentially the stage of idea inception or basic research.) TRL 2 – Technology Concept Formulated: The basic idea is fleshed out into a potential application. The technology concept and possible use cases are postulated, but it remains speculative – there is no experimental proof or detailed analysis yet. TRL 3 – Proof of Concept (Analytical and Experimental): Active research and development begin to validate the feasibility of the concept. Analytical studies and laboratory experiments are performed to demonstrate proof-of-concept for key functions or characteristics. At this stage, a laboratory demonstration or experimental prototype of the critical components is often built to show that the idea can work in principle. TRL 4 – Component Validation in Laboratory: A rudimentary version of the technology (breadboard) is built and tested in a lab setting. Multiple components or subsystems are integrated to verify that they work together and meet certain performance benchmarks under controlled conditions. Success at TRL 4 means the core technical components function in a lab environment. TRL 5 – Component Validation in Relevant Environment: The technology (still at prototype/breadboard level) is tested in an environment that simulates real-world conditions as closely as possible. This might involve environmental chambers or field test conditions relevant to the final application (for space, think vacuum chambers, radiation, or thermal conditions similar to space). Reaching TRL 5 demonstrates the technology’s performance in a simulated operational environment, bridging the gap between pure lab tests and real conditions. TRL 6 – System/Subsystem Model or Prototype Demonstrated in Relevant Environment: A fully functional prototype or system model is tested in a relevant environment, meaning a high-fidelity simulation or field environment that closely matches the real operational setting. By TRL 6, the prototype has working features and performance close to the final intended system, and it has undergone rigorous testing in conditions approximating its target environment (for example, a prototype satellite instrument might be tested on a high-altitude balloon or an aircraft). TRL 7 – System Prototype Demonstration in Operational Environment: A near-final prototype is demonstrated in an actual operational environment. For space projects, TRL 7 often means a prototype has been test-flown in space or in a mission-like scenario. This level is a significant milestone: the system prototype operates in the real world (orbit, deep space, etc.), proving that it can perform its intended functions under actual mission conditions. TRL 8 – Actual System Completed and Qualified Through Testing: The final system is complete and has passed all required tests and evaluations. At TRL 8, the technology is “flight qualified,” meaning it has been verified to work in its intended operational environment through testing and demonstration. Essentially, the product is ready for deployment – all designs are frozen, and the technology meets the standards and certifications needed for use in an actual mission. TRL 9 – Actual System Proven in Mission Operations: The technology is fully operational and has been successfully used in a mission or operational setting. Reaching TRL 9 means the system is “flight proven” – it has performed reliably during one or more real missions, meeting all objectives in an operational environment. At this point, the technology is considered mature; it has transitioned from development into real-world service. As the above scale shows, each TRL corresponds to a phase of development in a project’s life cycle. For example, at TRL 3 the team has demonstrated a proof-of-concept in laboratory conditions (showing that the core idea is workable). By TRL 6, there is a working prototype tested in a relevant environment that approximates the final operating conditions. And by TRL 9, the system has not only been built and tested but also successfully operated in a real mission, proving its readiness beyond any doubt. Understanding these levels helps project managers and stakeholders to gauge progress: moving from one TRL to the next typically requires overcoming specific technical hurdles and completing certain tests or demonstrations. Risk Management and the “Valley of Death” in TRL Progression One of the key reasons the TRL framework is so valuable is that it helps in managing technological risk. Early-stage technologies (TRL 1–3) carry high uncertainty – many concepts at this stage might fail because the basic science is unproven. However, the cost of exploration at low TRLs is relatively small (mostly analytical work and bench-top experiments). As a project advances to intermediate levels (TRL 4–6), it enters a phase of building prototypes and testing in simulated environments. Here, both the investment and the stakes increase: the project is no longer just theory, but not yet proven in real deployment. This middle stage is often where projects struggle, facing what’s colloquially known as the technological “Valley of Death.” The “Valley of Death” refers to the critical gap between a validated prototype and a fully operational system. In terms of TRL, it is most commonly associated with the transition from about TRL 5–6 to TRL 7, when a technology must move from demonstration in a relevant environment to demonstration in a true operational environment (for space, that means actually going to space). Bridging this gap is challenging because costs rise steeply and opportunities for testing can be scarce. A NASA study noted that the expense and effort required to advance a technology increase dramatically at higher TRLs – for instance, getting from TRL 5 to TRL 6 can cost multiple times more than all the work from TRL 1 to 5 combined, and moving from TRL 6 to TRL 7 is an even bigger leap. At TRL 7, an actual system prototype must be demonstrated in the target environment, which for a space technology means a flight test or orbital deployment – an endeavor requiring significant funding, meticulous engineering, and often a willingness to accept high risk. It is during this jump (often called the “TRL 6–7 transition”) that many projects falter, either due to technical issues, budget constraints, or the difficulty of securing a flight opportunity. This is the notorious “Death Valley” of tech innovation, where promising prototypes may languish without ever reaching a mission. Effectively managing risk through this TRL valley involves careful planning and incremental testing, as well as often seeking partnerships or funding programs specifically aimed at technology demonstration. Agencies like NASA and ESA have programs to support technologies through this phase, precisely because it’s so pivotal. A successful strategy is to use iterative prototyping and demonstration projects (for example, testing on suborbital rockets, balloon flights, or the International Space Station for space tech) to gather data and build confidence gradually before committing to a full mission. Additionally, understanding where a project sits on the TRL scale allows decision-makers to tailor their expectations and risk management approach: low-TRL projects need research-oriented management and tolerance for failure, whereas high-TRL projects (closer to deployment) demand rigorous validation, quality assurance, and reliability testing to ensure mission success. TTMS – Supporting Projects at All TRL Stages Transition Technologies Managed Services (TTMS) is a technology partner that recognizes the importance of the TRL framework in guiding project development, especially in high-stakes sectors like space and defense. As a provider of services for the space industry, TTMS emphasizes that it can support projects at every TRL level – from early R&D and prototyping all the way to full implementation and operational deployment. In fact, TTMS notes that it offers expertise across all technology domains and “on all technology readiness levels” for space missions. This means that whether a project is just a concept on the drawing board (TRL 1–2), in the proof-of-concept or prototyping phase (TRL 3–6), or nearly ready for launch and deployment (TRL 7–9), TTMS can provide relevant support and services. Practically, TTMS’s involvement can take many forms depending on the TRL stage. For example, in the low-TRL phases (idea, concept, and proof-of-concept), TTMS can contribute research expertise, feasibility studies, or help prepare a proof of concept through its consultants’ technical advice. This might involve software simulations, algorithm development, or lab prototyping to validate basic principles. As the project moves into mid-TRL development (building full prototypes and testing), TTMS is prepared to support the development effort by providing complete software solutions or dedicated components and engineers, ensuring that the prototype meets its requirements and can be tested in relevant conditions. For projects approaching deployment (high TRLs), TTMS can assist with final system integration, verification and validation (IV&V), and even product assurance and quality assurance processes to make sure the technology is mission-ready. Notably, TTMS has experience in space-sector Product Assurance (PA) and Quality Assurance (QA) and can cover those needs for space missions at all TRL stages – helping increase the mission’s success rate by ensuring reliability and safety standards are met. By being able to engage at any TRL, TTMS helps organizations navigate the challenges unique to each stage. For instance, bridging the TRL 6–7 gap (“Valley of Death”) often requires not just funding but also the right technical guidance and project management expertise. TTMS’s broad experience allows it to assist teams in planning that critical jump – from preparing a robust demonstration plan to implementing risk mitigation strategies and even contributing specialized personnel for testing campaigns. In other words, TTMS offers end-to-end support: from innovative R&D (where flexibility and creativity are key) to later-stage deployment and maintenance (where process discipline and assurance dominate). This versatility is a strong asset for any space project consortium that must traverse the entire TRL spectrum to deliver a successful mission. Conclusion The Technology Readiness Level scale provides a clear roadmap of technological maturity, which is invaluable in the space industry for aligning expectations, managing risks, and making investment decisions. By breaking development into TRL stages, teams can celebrate progress in tangible steps – from the spark of a new idea (TRL 1) to a fully operational capability (TRL 9) – and stakeholders can communicate about the project’s status with a common understanding of what remains to be done. Importantly, recognizing the significance of each TRL also highlights why certain transitions (like moving from a tested prototype to a flight-ready system) are so challenging and crucial. This educational insight into TRLs underpins better project planning and risk management, helping to avoid pitfalls in the notorious “Valley of Death” and beyond. For companies like TTMS that work with space-sector clients, TRLs are not just abstract labels – they guide how to tailor support and services to the project’s needs. By supporting projects across all TRL levels, TTMS demonstrates a comprehensive capability: whether it’s nurturing a concept in the lab or fine-tuning a system for launch, the goal is to help innovative technologies make it through every phase of development and ultimately achieve mission success. In summary, understanding and utilizing Technology Readiness Levels is key to driving space projects forward, and having the right partners in place at each level can make the difference in turning a promising technology into an operational reality. FAQ Who developed the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) scale? The Technology Readiness Level scale was initially developed by NASA in the 1970s as a structured way to evaluate and communicate the maturity of emerging technologies. It has since been adopted globally by various organizations, including the European Space Agency (ESA), the U.S. Department of Defense, and the European Union. Its widespread use comes from its effectiveness in providing a clear, universal framework for technology assessment, helping stakeholders understand exactly how advanced a particular technology is, managing associated risks, making informed investment decisions, and facilitating clear communication between technical teams, managers, and investors across multiple industries. Why is TRL important for space projects? In space and defense projects, technological reliability and performance are critically important due to high stakes, substantial investments, and severe consequences in case of failures. The TRL scale helps project teams systematically address and mitigate risks at each development phase. By clearly defining stages from basic theoretical concepts (TRL 1) to fully operational, mission-proven systems (TRL 9), the scale ensures that technologies are rigorously tested and validated before deployment, thus significantly reducing uncertainties and risks inherent in these high-stakes sectors. What does the transition from TRL 6 to TRL 7 involve? The transition between TRL 6 (prototype tested in simulated operational conditions) and TRL 7 (demonstration of the prototype in actual operational conditions) is notoriously challenging and referred to as the “Valley of Death.” At this critical juncture, projects often face exponentially increasing costs, heightened complexity, and limited opportunities for real-world testing. Many technologies fail to make this leap due to inadequate funding, unforeseen technical challenges, or the inability to secure partnerships or test environments required for demonstration. Successfully bridging this gap requires meticulous risk management, substantial financial investment, strategic partnerships, and careful planning. How can companies overcome the “Valley of Death”? Organizations can overcome the “Valley of Death” by adopting a strategic and proactive approach. Key practices include securing dedicated funding specifically for advanced prototype demonstrations, establishing partnerships with governmental agencies (like NASA or ESA), academic institutions, or industry collaborators that offer testing platforms and expertise, and performing incremental and iterative testing to gradually reduce uncertainties. Robust project management, meticulous planning, and proactive risk mitigation strategies are also essential in navigating this challenging stage of technology maturation successfully. In what ways does TTMS support space projects across different TRL stages? TTMS provides comprehensive support tailored to each TRL stage, covering the entire technology lifecycle. During early phases (TRL 1-3), TTMS assists with foundational research, feasibility studies, and early prototyping through consulting, algorithm development, and software simulations. As technologies mature into intermediate stages (TRL 4-6), TTMS offers technical support through advanced prototype development, rigorous testing, and validation in relevant environments. Finally, for advanced stages (TRL 7-9), TTMS delivers specialized expertise in system integration, thorough verification and validation processes, product assurance (PA), and quality assurance (QA). By providing expertise tailored specifically to the requirements at each TRL, TTMS ensures a smoother progression through critical development phases, enhancing the likelihood of achieving successful operational deployment.
Read
KYC as the Foundation of AML Compliance
KYC as the Foundation of AML Compliance – Role in Preventing Financial Crime and Requirements of 5AMLD/6AMLD KYC (Know Your Customer) is the process of verifying the identity and credibility of clients, which forms the basis of compliance with AML (Anti-Money Laundering) regulations. Thanks to an effective KYC process, financial institutions and other businesses can ensure who they are entering into relationships with, preventing their services from being misused for financial crime such as money laundering or terrorism financing. EU regulations – including the 5th and 6th AML Directives (5AMLD, 6AMLD) – require companies to implement solid KYC procedures as part of their broader AML program. This article explains the importance of the KYC process as the foundation of AML compliance, its role in preventing financial crime, its connection to EU regulations (5AMLD, 6AMLD), and the requirements imposed on companies in the EU. It is aimed at business audiences – banks, financial institutions, real estate firms, law firms, accounting offices, and other obligated entities – who want to understand how to implement an effective KYC process and integrate it with AML solutions. What is the KYC Process and Why Is It Crucial? The KYC process is a set of procedures designed to thoroughly know the customer. It includes identifying and verifying the client’s identity using independent and reliable documents and information, as well as assessing the risks associated with the business relationship. In other words, a company checks who the client is, where their funds come from, and the purpose of the relationship. KYC is essential because it prevents serving anonymous clients or those using false identities and helps detect potentially suspicious circumstances already at the onboarding stage. The KYC process is considered the foundation of AML compliance, as without proper client identification further anti-money laundering activities would be ineffective. Adhering to KYC procedures enables, among other things, establishing the true identity of the customer, learning the source of their funds, and assessing the level of risk, thus forming the first line of defense against the misuse of a company for criminal purposes. Companies that implement effective KYC better protect their reputation and avoid engaging with clients who carry unacceptable risk. Key elements of the KYC process include, among others: Customer Identification (CIP) – collecting the customer’s basic personal data (e.g., name, address, date of birth, national ID or tax number in the case of a company) and copies of identity and registration documents as the first step in establishing the relationship. Identity Verification – confirming the authenticity of collected data using documents (ID card, passport), public registers, or other independent sources. Modern e-KYC tools are often used, such as biometric verification of documents and facial recognition, to quickly and accurately verify the client. Ultimate Beneficial Ownership (UBO) – identifying the natural person who ultimately controls a client that is a legal entity. This requires determining the ownership structure and often consulting registers such as the Central Register of Beneficial Owners. Customer Due Diligence (CDD) – analyzing and assessing customer risk based on the information collected. This includes checking whether the client appears on sanctions lists or is a politically exposed person (PEP), as well as understanding the client’s business profile and the purpose and nature of the relationship. Standard CDD applies to most customers with a typical risk profile. Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD) – in-depth verification for high-risk clients. If a client is deemed high risk (e.g., a foreign politician, operating in a high-risk country, or carrying out very large transactions), the institution must apply enhanced security measures: request additional documentation, monitor transactions more frequently, and obtain senior management approval to establish or maintain the relationship. Ongoing Monitoring – the KYC process does not end once the client has been onboarded. It is crucial to continuously monitor customer activity and transactions to detect potential suspicious actions. This includes regular updates of client information (periodic refresh of KYC data), analyzing transactions for consistency with the customer’s profile, and reacting to red flags (e.g., unusually large cash deposits). All of the above elements make up a comprehensive “Know Your Customer” process, which is the cornerstone of secure business operations. Best practices require documenting all KYC activities and retaining the collected data for the legally mandated period (usually 5 years or more). This allows the institution to demonstrate to regulators that it fulfills its KYC/AML obligations and properly manages customer risk. The Role of KYC in Preventing Financial Crime Strong KYC procedures are essential for preventing financial crime. By thoroughly knowing the customer, companies can identify red flags pointing to potential money laundering, terrorism financing, or fraud at an early stage. For example, verifying the client’s identity and source of funds may reveal that the person appears in suspect registers or originates from a sanctioned country – requiring enhanced scrutiny or refusal of cooperation. KYC provides critical input data to AML systems. Information gathered about the customer (e.g., identification data, PEP status, transaction profile) feeds analytical engines and transaction monitoring systems. This enables automated comparison of the customer’s behavior against their expected risk profile. If the customer begins conducting unusual operations – for example, significantly larger transactions than usual or transfers to high-risk jurisdictions – the AML system will detect anomalies based on KYC data and generate an alert. In this way, KYC and AML work together to prevent illegal financial activities. Good KYC increases the effectiveness of transaction monitoring and makes it easier to identify truly suspicious activities, while at the same time reducing the number of false alerts. In addition, fulfilling KYC obligations deters potential criminals. A financial institution that requires full identification and verification becomes less attractive to those attempting to launder money. From a company’s perspective, effective KYC not only prevents fines and financial losses associated with (even unintentional) involvement in criminal activity, but also protects its reputation. In sectors such as banking or real estate, trust is key – and implementing high KYC standards builds the institution’s credibility in the eyes of both clients and regulators. EU AML Regulations: 5AMLD, 6AMLD and KYC Obligations for Companies The European Union has developed a comprehensive set of AML/KYC regulations designed to harmonize and strengthen the fight against money laundering across all Member States. The main legal acts are successive AML Directives: 4AMLD, 5AMLD and 6AMLD (the fourth, fifth and sixth Anti-Money Laundering Directives). These directives have been transposed into national law (in Poland through the Act of March 1, 2018 on Counteracting Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) and impose on obligated institutions a range of requirements related to KYC and AML. Obligated institutions include all entities operating in sectors particularly exposed to the risk of money laundering. These cover not only banks and investment firms, but also insurers, brokerage houses, payment institutions, and currency exchange offices, as well as non-financial entities – such as notaries, lawyers (when handling clients’ financial transactions), tax advisors, accounting offices, real estate brokers, auction houses and art galleries (selling luxury goods), cryptocurrency exchanges, and lending companies. All of these entities are legally required to apply KYC and AML procedures. They must implement internal policies and procedures that ensure customer identification, risk assessment, transaction registration and reporting, as well as staff training on AML regulations. 5th AML Directive (5AMLD), effective from January 2020, introduced significant extensions to KYC obligations. Among other things, the list of obligated institutions was expanded – for the first time including cryptocurrency exchanges and wallet providers, who are now required to conduct full KYC on their users and report suspicious operations. 5AMLD also emphasized greater transparency of company ownership information by mandating public access to registers of beneficial owners of companies in the EU, making it easier for institutions to access ownership data of corporate clients. Additional security measures were introduced for transactions with high-risk countries, and thresholds for certain transactions requiring KYC were lowered (e.g., for occasional transactions involving virtual currencies, the threshold was set at EUR 1000). For financial institutions and other firms, this meant updating KYC/AML procedures – adapting them to cover new types of clients and transactions, and to use new registers. 6th AML Directive (6AMLD), transposed by Member States by December 2020, focuses on harmonizing definitions of money laundering offenses and tightening sanctions. It introduced a common EU-wide list of 22 predicate offences, the commission of which is considered the source of “dirty money” subject to money laundering. Among these offences, cybercrime was added for the first time in EU AML regulations. 6AMLD required EU countries to introduce laws providing harsher penalties for money laundering – across the Union, the minimum maximum prison sentence for this crime must be at least 4 years. Another important element of 6AMLD is the extension of criminal liability to legal entities (companies). A business can be held liable if, for example, its management allows money laundering to occur within the company’s operations or fails to meet oversight obligations. In practice, 6AMLD forces companies to take even greater care with compliance – lapses in AML controls can result in severe legal consequences not only for employees but also for the organization itself. The EU directives translate into specific KYC/AML requirements for companies. Every obligated institution in the EU must apply so-called customer due diligence measures, which include: identification and verification of the customer and beneficial owner, assessment of the purpose and nature of the business relationship, ongoing monitoring of customer transactions, and retaining collected information for at least 5 years. For high-risk clients, enhanced due diligence (EDD) is required, such as obtaining additional information on the sources of wealth or closer monitoring of transactions. Companies must also maintain a register of transactions above defined thresholds and report suspicious transactions to the competent authorities (e.g., in Poland, to GIIF). In addition, regulations require companies to appoint an AML Officer responsible for oversight and to regularly train staff on current AML rules. Failure to comply with KYC/AML obligations carries serious sanctions. Regulators may impose high administrative fines – up to 5 million euros or 10% of annual company turnover for severe violations. They may also apply other measures such as a temporary ban on conducting certain activities or public disclosure of the violation, exposing the firm to major reputational damage. In addition, individuals (e.g., management board members) may face criminal liability – in Poland, money laundering is punishable by up to 12 years of imprisonment. All this means that adhering to AML regulations and diligently carrying out the KYC process is not just a legal duty, but a matter of business survival and security. Implementing an Effective KYC Process and Integration with AML Solutions To meet legal requirements and genuinely reduce risk, companies must not only formally implement KYC procedures but do so effectively and integrate them with the overall AML system. Below are the key steps and best practices for building an effective KYC process and linking it to broader AML activities: Risk assessment and AML/KYC policy: An organization should begin with a risk assessment of money laundering related to its activities and types of clients. Based on this, it develops an internal AML/KYC policy defining customer identification procedures, division of responsibilities, incident reporting, etc. A risk-based approach ensures resources are directed where risk is highest – e.g., stricter procedures for clients from high-risk countries or sectors. Customer identification and verification procedures: The company should implement standardized procedures for collecting and verifying data from new clients. Increasingly, digital solutions streamline KYC – for example, remote identity verification apps using document scanning and biometric facial verification. It is also important to check clients in available registers and databases, such as EU/UN sanctions lists and PEP databases, which can be automated using specialized software. Identifying beneficial owners in corporate clients: For business or organizational clients, it is essential to determine their ownership structure and identify the natural persons who ultimately control the entity (UBOs). Central registers of beneficial owners (such as CRBR in Poland) can help, but under 5AMLD institutions cannot rely solely on these registers – they should independently verify information and document any difficulties in identifying the owner. Integrating KYC data with transaction systems: All customer information obtained during KYC should be used in ongoing monitoring. Ideally, the company’s banking or financial system should be integrated with an AML module so that the client’s risk profile influences transaction monitoring. For example, a high-risk client will be subject to more frequent and detailed analysis. KYC data feeds AML scoring engines, enabling automatic detection of unusual behavior and faster response. Such integration also reduces data silos and the risk of overlooking important client information. Automation and modern technologies: Implementing dedicated IT solutions can significantly increase effectiveness and reduce the costs of KYC/AML. For example, AI-based systems can analyze customer behavior and transactions in real time, while machine learning helps detect unnatural patterns that may indicate money laundering. Robotic Process Automation (RPA) is used to automatically extract and verify data from documents (OCR), reducing human error. Research shows that automation and KYC/AML integration can shorten new customer verification time by up to 80% and drastically cut errors. As a result, compliance improves while customer onboarding becomes faster and less burdensome. Training and compliance audits: Technology alone cannot replace human factors. Staff must be properly trained in KYC/AML procedures and know how to recognize warning signs. Companies should regularly conduct training for frontline employees and management, and also perform periodic internal compliance audits. Audits help identify gaps or irregularities in fulfilling KYC/AML obligations and implement corrective actions before an external regulator’s inspection. In summary, effective implementation of the KYC process requires a combination of people, procedures, and technology. Obligated institutions should treat KYC not as a burden, but as an investment in the security of their business. An integrated KYC/AML process ensures compliance with regulations, early detection of abuse attempts, increased operational efficiency, and trust-building with clients and business partners. In the dynamic EU regulatory environment (with further changes underway, including the establishment of a pan-European AML authority – AMLA), companies must continuously refine their KYC/AML procedures to stay ahead of financial criminals and meet growing supervisory demands. Most Common Questions about KYC/AML (FAQ) What is the KYC process and what is its purpose? The KYC (Know Your Customer) process is a set of procedures aimed at knowing and verifying the customer’s identity. Its purpose is to confirm that the client is who they claim to be and to understand the risks associated with serving them. As part of KYC, the institution collects personal data and documents (e.g., ID card, company registration documents), verifies their authenticity, and assesses the client’s profile (including sources of funds, type of business activity). The goal of KYC is to protect the company from engaging with imposters, dishonest clients, or those involved in money laundering or terrorism financing. In short – thanks to KYC, a company knows who it is dealing with and can consciously manage the associated risks. How is KYC different from AML? KYC and AML are related but distinct concepts. KYC focuses on knowing the customer – it is the process of identifying and verifying client data and assessing risk before and during the business relationship. AML (Anti-Money Laundering), on the other hand, is a broader system of regulations, procedures, and actions aimed at preventing money laundering and terrorist financing across the organization as a whole. In other words, KYC is one element of the overall AML program. In practice, AML includes not only the initial verification of the customer (KYC), but also ongoing transaction monitoring, behavioral analysis, detection of suspicious patterns, and reporting of suspicious transactions to the relevant authorities. KYC provides the input – knowledge of who the customer is and their characteristics – while the AML system uses this data for comprehensive oversight of financial activity after the relationship has begun. Both elements must work closely together: even the best AML transaction monitoring tools will not function effectively if the company knows nothing about its clientele (lack of KYC), and conversely – KYC alone without subsequent monitoring will not be enough to detect unusual transactions conducted by an apparently “normal” client. Which EU regulations govern KYC/AML obligations (5AMLD, 6AMLD)? In the European Union, the legal framework for KYC/AML obligations is set out in successive AML directives. 4AMLD (Directive 2015/849) introduced the risk-based approach and the requirement to create central registers of beneficial owners of companies. 5AMLD (Directive 2018/843) expanded the scope of regulation – bringing crypto exchanges and wallet providers into the AML regime, placing greater emphasis on beneficial ownership identification (including public access to UBO registers), and tightening rules for cooperation with high-risk countries. 6AMLD (Directive 2018/1673) harmonized definitions of money laundering offenses across the EU and strengthened criminal aspects – it identified 22 predicate offenses, introduced stricter minimum penalties (Member States must provide at least 4 years maximum imprisonment for money laundering), and extended criminal liability to legal entities. In practice, this means that companies in the EU must comply with uniform standards for client identification, verifying their status (e.g., whether they are on a sanctions list), and monitoring transactions. National laws (such as Poland’s AML Act) implement these directives by imposing specific obligations on obligated institutions: applying customer due diligence in defined scenarios, reporting suspicious and above-threshold transactions, retaining documentation, appointing an internal AML Officer, etc. Furthermore, EU regulations are continuously evolving – in 2024, the AML package was agreed, which includes the establishment of an EU-wide AML authority (AMLA) and the introduction of a new AML regulation, further unifying the approach to KYC/AML across the Union. Which companies are subject to KYC/AML obligations? KYC and AML obligations apply to so-called obligated institutions, entities designated by law as particularly exposed to the risk of money laundering or terrorist financing. The list is broad. It traditionally includes all financial institutions: banks (including foreign branches), credit unions, brokerage houses, insurance companies (especially life insurers), investment funds, payment institutions, and currency exchange offices. In addition, AML obligations also apply to notaries, lawyers (when handling clients’ financial transactions such as property deals or company formation), tax advisors, auditors, and accounting offices. The catalog of obligated institutions also includes real estate agents, businesses dealing in luxury goods (e.g., antiques, works of art, precious stones – if transactions exceed a set threshold), and, since 5AMLD, crypto exchanges and wallet providers. As a result, the duty to implement KYC/AML procedures rests on a very wide range of companies – not only banks. Each of these institutions must identify their clients, monitor their transactions, and report suspicions to state authorities. It is worth noting that even companies outside the official list of obligated institutions often voluntarily adopt KYC/AML measures (e.g., fintechs not under full supervision), as this is seen as good business practice and a way to build customer trust. How to effectively implement KYC in a company and integrate it with AML? Implementing an effective KYC process requires a multi-layered approach – combining clearly defined procedures, trained personnel, and the right technological tools. Here are a few steps and principles to achieve this goal: 1. Set the framework and risk assessment: Begin by defining an AML/KYC policy tailored to the company’s profile. It should state when KYC measures must be applied (e.g., at the start of every client relationship or for transactions above a certain threshold) and who is responsible. At the same time, conduct a risk assessment to identify business areas and client types most vulnerable to money laundering. The results help focus attention where risk is highest. 2. Apply appropriate identification procedures: Collecting complete information from the client and verifying its authenticity is crucial. Prepare lists of acceptable identity and registration documents and establish verification procedures. Increasingly, remote verification tools (e-KYC) are used, such as automatic reading of ID data and comparing the photo in the document with the client’s live facial image. These technologies speed up the process and reduce human error. 3. Screen clients against external databases: A key part of KYC is checking whether the client appears on international sanctions lists or in PEP databases. Manual searching is inefficient – it is better to use screening systems that automatically compare client data against constantly updated lists. This way, the company immediately knows if a prospective client is sanctioned or holds a prominent public function, requiring additional measures (EDD). 4. Identify beneficial owners: For corporate clients, you must establish who ultimately owns and controls the entity. Obtain current extracts from registers (e.g., national company registers) and use beneficial ownership registers to understand the ownership structure. For complex ownership (e.g., subsidiaries of foreign holdings), request organizational charts or declarations. Record every step – regulations require documenting difficulties in identifying UBOs. 5. Link KYC with transaction monitoring: The data collected during KYC should be used in ongoing monitoring. A client’s risk profile should influence transaction monitoring parameters. Modern AML systems define detection scenarios using KYC data (e.g., different thresholds for low-risk vs. high-risk clients). Ensuring automatic, real-time integration between KYC databases and transaction systems is critical. This integration allows anomalies to be detected more quickly and improves the effectiveness of the entire AML program. 6. Use technology and automation: Investing in RegTech solutions improves efficiency. For example, AML platforms can score risk automatically using KYC data, and AI-based systems can analyze transactions in real time, learning normal behavior patterns and generating alerts for anomalies. Automation reduces manual work like retyping data (OCR handles it) or creating reports. Studies show that RegTech solutions can cut onboarding time by up to 80% and reduce errors and false positives, letting compliance staff focus on truly suspicious cases. 7. Train staff and ensure compliance audits: Even the best procedures will fail if people do not follow them or do not understand their purpose. Regular AML/KYC training is mandatory – both at onboarding new employees and periodically (e.g., annually) for all staff. Training reinforces the ability to spot suspicious activity and respond properly. Management should also ensure independent internal audits of AML/KYC procedures to verify compliance, documentation completeness, and system effectiveness. Audit results enable corrective actions before regulators uncover issues. Implementing an effective KYC process is continuous, not a one-off project. AML regulations evolve, new risks (e.g., from cryptocurrencies or emerging fintech) appear, so companies must continuously adapt. Still, investing in robust KYC/AML processes brings multiple benefits – avoiding fines, protecting reputation, and creating a transparent, secure business environment that supports long-term growth. What are the most common mistakes companies make when implementing KYC? One of the most common mistakes is approaching KYC as a one-off obligation rather than a continuous process. Organizations often fail to update client information, rely too much on manual checks instead of using automation, or overlook the importance of training employees. These shortcomings create compliance risks and reduce the effectiveness of the entire AML framework. How does KYC affect the customer experience? When properly implemented, KYC can actually improve customer experience. Automated e-KYC tools allow customers to go through onboarding faster and with fewer documents, often in a fully digital process. Clear communication and user-friendly design help reduce frustration, while strong verification builds trust and confidence in the institution. Is KYC only relevant for the financial sector? KYC obligations extend far beyond traditional banks and insurers. Real estate agencies, law firms, accounting offices, luxury goods dealers, art galleries, casinos, and cryptocurrency exchanges are also required to conduct KYC under EU directives. Even companies outside the formal list of obligated entities increasingly adopt KYC voluntarily to safeguard their reputation and business relationships. How is automation changing the KYC process? Automation has become a game changer for KYC. Artificial intelligence, RegTech, and robotic process automation allow firms to handle large volumes of customer data more efficiently. Automated sanctions screening, biometric ID verification, and real-time monitoring reduce errors and free up compliance teams to focus on genuinely suspicious cases. What does the future of KYC look like beyond 2025? KYC is expected to integrate with digital identity initiatives across the EU, making verification faster and more secure. Technologies such as blockchain analytics, biometric authentication, and cross-border data sharing will become standard. With the creation of the EU AML Authority (AMLA), supervision will become more centralized and harmonized, ensuring higher consistency and stricter enforcement across Member States.
ReadRecommended articles
The world’s largest corporations have trusted us
We hereby declare that Transition Technologies MS provides IT services on time, with high quality and in accordance with the signed agreement. We recommend TTMS as a trustworthy and reliable provider of Salesforce IT services.
TTMS has really helped us thorough the years in the field of configuration and management of protection relays with the use of various technologies. I do confirm, that the services provided by TTMS are implemented in a timely manner, in accordance with the agreement and duly.
Ready to take your business to the next level?
Let’s talk about how TTMS can help.
Monika Radomska
Sales Manager